What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Warning to all Canadians transiting US Airspace

vlittle

vlittle

Well Known Member
This is serious. New TSA regulations have effectively banned all foreign registered General Aviation aircraft from overflying any US airspace without a waiver (effectively an APIS).

This includes the standard approaches into many Canadian airports and airspace seconded to Nav Canada, such as near Vancouver and Victoria BC. Not only does this greatly complicate flying between Canadian destinations, it may lead to confusion and resulting safety concerns at airports.

An example at CYYJ is the standard Stuart Island arrival and departure. Stuart Island is is just barely into US airspace. Routing of aircraft to use different departures will complicate and congest CYYJ airspace.

In the past, as long as we were in radio contact with ATC, had a functioning C/S transponder and were on a flight plan, we were good to go. Now, we will have to apply and wait for permission to enter US airspace up to 2 days in advance for a 15 minute flight.

Insanity, or mad bureaucrat disease?

UPDATE: I just confirmed this interpretation with Nav Canada and it is causing a great kerfuffle inside the organization. They did add, however, that they have an understanding with the TSA that Canadian aircraft won't be intercepted if they are flying circuits at Canadian airports (that's nice). However, my 2 day notice of overflight is wrong, it's actually 5 days. Nav Canada realizes the safety impact of funneling aircraft into narrow corridors to skirt American territorial airspace and they are 'negotiating' with the TSA. Good luck with that!
 
Last edited:
More info:

I also confirmed that if we follow the charted VFR transit routes over the Straight of Georgia to remain clear of the Vancouver Terminal airspace, even if we are on a flight plan, we are in technical violation of the requirement to have:
-a Waiver (APIS)
-a flight plan
-squawk mode c or s
-2 way communications (the violating issue).

Nav Canada is very concerned about the additional congestion in class C airspace, and the need to route aircraft differently.
 
Nice

So now another layer of mystery bs to try and understand.

I live in a peninsula of land surrounded by the US on three sides. I do tons of eapis filings, and international flight plans annually and have no issue with common sense and doing all properly with plans, codes etc. This change doesn't seem to make any sense. There are already lots of rules in place.

Thanks for posting, we will look into this down here and see what it means.

Our government just gave all the air over our city/county (over certain level) to the US too. We now have to get US controllers to "allow us" to fly in our air over our airport in our country. Not trying to get to political but do the lawmakers understand how many thousands of miles of common borders we share and how many places you can literally walk across the border, or paddle a canoe, run a boat ...no fence, no guns, no radar, no barb wire.
 
Last edited:
vlittle said:
my 2 day notice of overflight is wrong, it's actually 5 days. Nav Canada realizes the safety impact of funneling aircraft into narrow corridors to skirt American territorial airspace and they are 'negotiating' with the TSA. Good luck with that!
Click to expand...

Nav Canada will just have to give the TSA 5 days notice that there will be a never ending stream of Canadian aircraft transiting over Stuart, as has been for a long time. :eek:

Bevan
 
Where is my shocked face

Inasmuch as I value my members' privileges here on Doug's site, I have nothing Code-of-Conduct-compliant to say about this sort of thing.

So, just upping my post count, I guess.

-Stormy
 
....the eye in da sky????

RickWoodall said:
.......... but do the lawmakers understand how many thousands of miles of common borders we share and how many places you can literally walk across the border, or paddle a canoe, run a boat ...no fence, no guns, no radar, no barb wire.
Click to expand...
....none of those things, but there ARE those drones with FLIR & hellfires, overhead 24/7! :)

...just kiddin', but seriously, how am I to comply if I have a few steam gauges in my RV, or champ, or cub.....or an old GPS with a 3.5" screen.
I've flown around Victoria only once, and can guarantee you that every little island looks the same at low altitude...throw in a few low clouds, and I WILL meander across the invisible line when joining a long final for 32.
...so please come visit me in my little cell in Leavenworth, ok?:confused:
 
So I got a phone call at 6:00 this morning from an unnamed organization in Washington DC. I have applied for a waiver from the FAA and TSA so that I can depart Victoria, and there was an irregularity in my application.

The local letter groups are all over this isue, but I have little faith that common sense will apply in the short term. In the meantime, compliance with the Notam will significantly increase airspace congestion while we are funneled into alternative routes.
 
This is their attempt to secure our borders? Harassing the Canadians? The only threat they are to us is they have far better beer and according to popular Colorado rumor....better, uh...crops. Leave the Canucks alone or they will take Hockey back.
 
When I was in flight school in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario in 2007-2010, we routinely flew across the border. No flight plan, no ATC contact, nothing. I did a little tour around the Mackinaw area in Michigan one day. Again no flight plan, no ATC contact. If the circuit got a little busy, we frequently got extended into US airspace. About 1/3 of my IFR training was doing practice approaches into KCIU with an instructor.

Now all of a sudden, we have a bunch of ridiculous hoops to jump through. I say we all continue to operate in US airspace the same amount we have before. Maybe the overwhelming quantity of paperwork we will be bombarding them with will change their minds. Maybe I should file a couple, then cancel them a few days later and say "I just file them in case I decide to go flying that day". After-all, I can't decide that today looks like a good day to go flying...with 5 days notice.
 
David Z said:
. . . . Maybe I should file a couple, then cancel them a few days later and say "I just file them in case I decide to go flying that day". After-all, I can't decide that today looks like a good day to go flying...with 5 days notice.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent idea. File for all the potential flights one wants to take. Based on typical flight of course. I am not involved (yet), but tons of new paperwork across the system will get their attention and quick.

Recent Example: The local KPIA airport director got thousands of calls because of the TSA drivers license issue. Illinois DL was going to cease being a valid ID for air travel. I imagine a hundred thousand citizens resulted in a hundred airport directors calls to the state politicians. Nothing gets internal attention like internal chaos when everyone is "doing the right thing"
 
Where i live there is a continuious stream of heavy iron overhead, much of it from the US. Maybe Canada needs to exercise a little sovereignty and forbid overflights until they stop this kind of stupidity.
 
I received my waiver from the FAA today, good for 90 days. The one provision is that I must cite the waiver number in my flight plan comments.

I listed the common airports that I will be flying to while transiting US airspace.

It only took two days to get the waiver, but I should be good for a 15 minute flight to Langley now.
 
flite planning

I totally support the rights of any nation to protect it's airspace.
but.....from.....us?

Vern, perhaps we could just add in our flight plan comments.....
"I am a 1600lb light recreational aircraft going to Chilliwack for pie, I promise I'm not a nuclear tipped N. Korean drone."

I think that should assuage some fears.

sorry, didn't mean to get 'political' but it's hard, when the regulations we fly under are 100% motivated by the dorks we elected king.
 
Vern
Do you think we will need this waiver when we file an eapis to a US airport as we have done in the past?

Could it be that they were trying to get a handle on those aircraft that are, for example, flying direct from Canada to Bermuda over US airspace, and they never considered the border intrusion issues dealing with approaches?
 
Air Space

A couple of years ago, I was ferrying a RV4 from Hamilton Ontario to Nova Scotia. I was well aware of the need for flight plan, ATC contact and transponder code to fly over Maine from Sherbrook Que., but after passing CFB Trenton and having flight following by them terminated, I called an Ottawa controller and asked for flight following as I continued toward Sherbrook. I was about ten miles from north of the river, and was told that she couldn't do that as I was in US air space. I questioned this, and was told that even though I was well in Canada, the airspace was controlled from the US. She told me to call again when a passed a certain point and she then obliged with the request. Seemed very strange to me.

Joe
 
The NOTAM is a little convoluted at first flush, but after re-reading, I don't think anything has changed with respect to flying Canadian registered aircraft into U.S. Airspace provided it meets the weight requirement. The NOTAM exempts aircraft under 100,309 lbs. unless iregistered to a U.S. State Department Designated Special Interest Country. The special rules and waiver contained within the NOTAM appear to me to be only applicable if the weight limit is exceeded and/or the aircraft is registered to a designated Special Interest Country.

My uniformed opinion only!

Cheers

John

RV6A (C-FNLY)

A. CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) ARE AUTHORIZED TO
1512140040-PERM
END PART 1 OF 9
!FDC 5/6289 ZZZ PART 2 OF 9 SECURITY SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS
FOR CIVIL
OPERATE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND IN VFR IN AIRPORT TRAFFIC
PATTERN AREAS OF UNITED STATES AIRPORTS NEAR THE UNITED STATES
BORDER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AIRCRAFT DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 1)
BELOW:
1) CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) AND REGISTERED IN
A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTRY OR
OPERATING WITH THE ICAO THREE LETTER DESIGNATOR OF A COMPANY IN A
COUNTRY LISTED AS A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL
INTEREST COUNTRY, UNLESS THE OPERATOR HOLDS VALID FAA PART 129
OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS, MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF
CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
GREAT THAN 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH B.
B. CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
GREATER THAN 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) ARE AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE IF IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1512140040-PERM
END PART 2 OF 9
 
J Crate said:
The NOTAM is a little convoluted at first flush, but after re-reading, I don't think anything has changed with respect to flying Canadian registered aircraft into U.S. Airspace provided it meets the weight requirement. The NOTAM exempts aircraft under 100,309 lbs. unless iregistered to a U.S. State Department Designated Special Interest Country. The special rules and waiver contained within the NOTAM appear to me to be only applicable if the weight limit is exceeded and/or the aircraft is registered to a designated Special Interest Country.

My uniformed opinion only!

Cheers

John

RV6A (C-FNLY)

A. CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) ARE AUTHORIZED TO
1512140040-PERM
END PART 1 OF 9
!FDC 5/6289 ZZZ PART 2 OF 9 SECURITY SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS
FOR CIVIL
OPERATE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND IN VFR IN AIRPORT TRAFFIC
PATTERN AREAS OF UNITED STATES AIRPORTS NEAR THE UNITED STATES
BORDER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AIRCRAFT DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 1)
BELOW:
1) CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) AND REGISTERED IN
A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTRY OR
OPERATING WITH THE ICAO THREE LETTER DESIGNATOR OF A COMPANY IN A
COUNTRY LISTED AS A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-DESIGNATED SPECIAL
INTEREST COUNTRY, UNLESS THE OPERATOR HOLDS VALID FAA PART 129
OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS, MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF
CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
GREAT THAN 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH B.
B. CIVIL AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF GROSS WEIGHT
GREATER THAN 100,309 POUNDS (45,500 KGS) ARE AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE IF IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1512140040-PERM
END PART 2 OF 9
Click to expand...

Read the whole NOTAM. "Operating within" is not the same as "Fly Through".

Presumable, the first is a foreign registered aircraft departing and landing within the US, the second is overflying the US to a non-US destination. They ARE treated differently.
 
Things are back as they were before

From the COPA website:

Jan 15 UPDATE:

COPA's and partners' work has come through. Amended NOTAMS are now public. Things are back as hey were before, please contact COPA if you have questions.
 
This Issue Was Actually Solved by the Canadian Fisheries Department

Seems the Fish and Game Department of Canada called TSA and told them..."hey dummies, when da fish your tryin to catch keep swimming tru da holes in your net, ya don't need to put out a bigger net, ya just need ta fix da one ya got" . Thank you Canada. Seems the threat of losing "Hockey Night" finally got the bureaucrats to open their eyes.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

Ps apologies if my yooper accent offends any Canadians
 
Paranoia works!

I've been intercepted by an F/A-18 from Whidbey NAS and it's an odd mix of terror, wonder and excitement.

Luckily, I outran him and made it back to Canada before he could catch me.
 
vlittle said:
Paranoia works!

I've been intercepted by an F/A-18 from Whidbey NAS and it's an odd mix of terror, wonder and excitement.

Luckily, I outran him and made it back to Canada before he could catch me.
Click to expand...

That's funny but as I recall, intercepting aircraft are permitted to follow the subject aircraft across the border into Canadian airspace. Now wouldn't that make for interesting evening news! :eek: There's probably many rules about this and quite complicated so not likely to happen.

Bevan
 
NOTAM rescinded.......Krazy Canucks again overflying the US of A

seems this little turkey has returned to it's roost.

The U.S. FAA and TSA have ended its border skirmish with Canadian pilots by withdrawing a controversial NOTAM that caused some serious heartburn for some operators north of the border.

The new NOTAM was posted Jan. 16 and reverses all the measures that were causing friction. The main issue was the new requirement for background checks and security waivers for pilots overflying U.S. airspace on their way to Canadian destinations.

Since the inception of aviation, Canadian aircraft have had the ability to transit U.S. airspace without having to report to Customs or submit to any other scrutiny from U.S. authorities.

While the new rules briefly caused some expense and inconvenience to some Canadian pilots and operators, it was the precedent setting nature of the NOTAM that concerned people on this side of the border

we'd like to think that someone actually picked up the phone, dialed the administrator, and said something like...."...so, what the heck were you thinkin' eh?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top